Genre: Mystery, Classic
Series: Hercule Poirot #3
Page Count: 255
Publication Year: 1926
Publisher: Originally published in the USA by Dodd, Mead & Company, my edition published by Pocket Books.
Special Notes: I think it's interesting that this is currently the highest rated Poirot on Goodreads.
Summary: Roger Ackroyd gets murdered.
C’mon. That’s a great summary.
This is my first Christie book but I’ve seen every David Suchet Poirot episode, as well as the newer Miss Marple’s and other random adaptations, so I am familiar with her work. I’m also rubbish at solving mysteries. Let’s see how this went.
Mysteries tend to follow a limited number of paths. It’s the person who’s least suspicious, most suspicious but cleared early on, they all did it, no one did it, and the oh wait, it was suicide/an accident…there are recognizable beats in every mystery. Ackroyd is no exception. The answer probably would’ve come to me sooner had I not been convinced that I remembered the answer from when I watched an adaptation. That assumption kept me from honing in on the clue I saw fairly early in the story.
The murder takes place in a small English village. Before Doctor Sheppard is called to view the body, poisons and blackmail are already circulating regarding another recently deceased person. Turns out those aren’t the only things to shake up life for the locals: the famous detective Hercule Poirot is a resident and is called to investigate the murder.
One of the hardest things to believe in these types of mysteries is that everyone always remembers where they were at the crucial time. In this case they’re questioned within a day of the murder, but even so, I can look at a clock and the next second forget what time it is. Everyone’s memory is just a bit too good.
The other thing is that everyone involved always looks suspicious. At some point it’ll appear that anyone could’ve done it because they all have a motive. Sometimes that is the case and as Poirot says, “Everyone concerned has something to hide,” but I find that of itself very suspicious. I’d like to find a mystery where only one person could’ve done the deed and they just have to figure out how to catch him.
While I prefer Peter Wimsey as a person, Poirot is a really fun detective. He may appear silly and have odd notions and fixations, but his gray cells know what’s what. He seems nicer in the book than in the show but I still imagined Suchet’s voice for all his dialogue.
I thought I’d have trouble keeping the characters apart since they’re all introduced in close succession, but they’re all pretty well defined. The doctor is the narrator and he shadows Poirot in the investigation and offers his unique perspective concerning the people and their involvement.
I’m a sucker for old-fashioned dialogue, so I quite like that aspect. Sometimes the description when talking about furniture placement and outdoor architecture didn’t quite make sense for me, but otherwise it’s fine.
What I really don’t like about this book is a massive spoiler, so I’ll be vague. It’s one of my least favorite storytelling techniques and I think it’s a big fat cheat. Of course now that I know the answer the hints will seem obvious. I believe this is the only time Christie used this route, so I’d be curious to read some of her other books to see how it compares. The cheat is skillfully executed but that doesn’t mean I have to like it, ‘cause I don’t.
Aside from keeping track of everyone’s location during the murder, trying to figure out what are important clues and being betrayed and mostly blindsided by the resolution, it’s a light and entertaining read.
“It is the business of Hercule Poirot to know things.”
Bonus review of Suchet's tv adaptation:
The crust is the same, but the filling’s all jumbled. Three major-ish characters are left out and Inspector Japp is brought in to replace most of Sheppard’s parts. The ending is also very different. The misdirection of the book is sorely missed and this is just another instance where the book is better. I do like seeing Poirot throw vegetables though.
Check out my rating here.
MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR BOOK
I hate unreliable narrators, doubly so when they’re in first-person. I knew around page 70 that he leaves stuff out of his narration, but then I foolishly shuffled that hint aside.
The entire time the narrator seems like a nice guy, but as soon as he’s caught BLAM! he turns into a soulless murderer who is instantly unlikable. Kudos to Christie for pulling that personality change on such short notice, but how did everyone see him as an upstanding citizen? Did he never say or do anything remotely alarming? Or act strangely after plunging a knife in Roger’s neck?
Omitting all the incriminating parts works when you realize that he intended to publish the story at some point, so he couldn’t go ahead and actually narrate the events. But it’s still so annoying. Maybe this bothers me only because I implicitly trust narrators of books and feel a sense of betrayal at intentionally being left in the dark. It doesn’t completely ruin this book, but I’ll keep my dislike forever.
I don’t remember if this is covered, but how could he know that someone would hear the dictaphone? Did Raymond always come by at the same time?
I’d confused this story with the one where the guy who died didn’t actually die. I was my own red herring, chasing this idea that Roger might not be dead and ignoring the incriminating clues.